AHMAD YAR Versus THE STATE
This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Ahmad Yar, who was accused in a cross-version case involving murder and injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, claiming to be a juvenile at the time of the occurrence, was entitled to bail under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, and whether the case warranted further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner had provided sufficient prima facie evidence—including a birth certificate, a matriculation certificate, and a medical board report—to establish his status as a juvenile. Furthermore, the court observed that the case involved cross-versions of the incident, necessitating further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and granted bail. The judgment establishes the principle that where an accused demonstrates juvenile status through credible documentation and the case involves conflicting versions of events, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the mandatory bail provisions for juveniles under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
- Is an accused entitled to bail if they are a juvenile and their trial has not concluded after one year of detention?
- Does a case involving cross-versions of an incident generally fall under the category of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can documents such as a birth certificate, matriculation certificate, and medical report be used to establish juvenile status for bail purposes?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 10(7-A), Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000
ORDER
Wali Muhammad lodged F.I.R. No.65 in Police Station Jhall Chakian, District Sargodha on 11‑3‑2001 for the murder of Noor Muhammad son of Toray Bas and for causing injuries on the persons of Said Rasool, Tahir Nawaz, Sabeeha Bibi and Zainab Bibi. Later on, Ahmad Khan also lodged the cross‑version for the murder of Shaukat Hayat and for causing injuries on the persons of Zaib Nawaz and Muhammad Riaz. Both the challans are pending before the learned. Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha.
2. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one person on the side of petitioner was killed and three persons were injured, that petitioner is minor and according to birth certificate "Annexure‑C" he was born on 8‑9‑1983, then according to Matric Certificate issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha his date of birth was shown as 1‑11‑1984 while according to the report of Board of Doctors, he was about 19 years of age on 2‑4‑2002, that according to subsection (7‑A) of section 10 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 if an accused, who is child has been detained for more than one year and his trial has not been concluded shall be entitled for the grant of bail, that it is a case of two versions, that father of the petitioner was also injured in this cross‑firing, that case of the petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He has also relied upon 2002 S.C.M.R 440, 2000 SCMR 79 and 2000 P.Cr.L.J 634.
3. On then other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R., specific role is attributed to him and the offence alleged against him falls within the ambit of section 497 (1), Cr.P.C.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has not been denied that petitioner is an accused in a cross‑version, prosecution till today has not rebutted the documents, that is. Birth Certificate. Matriculation Certificate and the report of Board of Doctors which prima facie, proves that petitioner was not above 18 years at the time of occurrence. Keeping in view of the above circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that case of the petitioner falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. which requires further inquiry into his guilt and also falls under subsection (7‑A) of section 10 or the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, therefore, this petition is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like‑amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
H.B.T./A‑486/L Bail granted.